history vs. archaeology, redux

[Minimalist]

i do have a hard time with the concept of the civil war being an industrial war

The Confederates won the First Battle of Manassas in 1861 because for the first time in history, railroads were used to conveys troops to a battlefield. {Joseph E. Johnston's troops were brought in from the Shenandoah Valley to reinforce P. G. T. Beauregard's army.}

The developments went hand in hand but the officers on both sides learned their craft during the Mexican War.

In that war, they fought a Mexican Army which had purchased surplus Brown Bess muskets from Britain. Thus, the Mexicans were fighting with obsolete weapons not modern rifles. Had the Mexicans had modern equipment those officers may have learned something.

Maybe.

[john]

i do have a hard time with the concept of the civil war being an industrial war

The Confederates won the First Battle of Manassas in 1861 because for the first time in history, railroads were used to conveys troops to a battlefield. {Joseph E. Johnston's troops were brought in from the Shenandoah Valley to reinforce P. G. T. Beauregard's army.}

The developments went hand in hand but the officers on both sides learned their craft during the Mexican War.

In that war, they fought a Mexican Army which had purchased surplus Brown Bess muskets from Britain. Thus, the Mexicans were fighting with obsolete weapons not modern rifles. Had the Mexicans had modern equipment those officers may have learned something.

Maybe.

i'm still focused on "history vs. archaeology". but there is an eenteresting point here.

we have archaeological evidence of the roman system of roads.

and what did roman armies do at the first opportunity?

build roads.

early evidence of industrial warfare, fueled by economic motivation.

the celts didn't stand a chance, although they were brave.

john

ps

trivia question for the evening - what was the standard of measure used to define the wheel-to wheel width of british narrow gauge railways?

answer: the width of roman roads, which was set by the standardised width-between-wheels of roman chariots.

this stuff is pernicious.

[Guest]

here is where i am going to break from the industrial warfare line of thinking and state that the previous example is more of a sign of superior use of intellect not industrialization.

[Starflower]

We live in a world full of Roman propaganda. The Romans took over the world with a mutant grass strain(wheat).

[john]

here is where i am going to break from the industrial warfare line of thinking and state that the previous example is more of a sign of superior use of intellect not industrialization.

superior use of intellect?

are you referring to military intelligence?


the entire burden of human progress seems to have been carried

on the backs of ox(ymorons).



j

[john]

i do have a hard time with the concept of the civil war being an industrial war

The Confederates won the First Battle of Manassas in 1861 because for the first time in history, railroads were used to conveys troops to a battlefield. {Joseph E. Johnston's troops were brought in from the Shenandoah Valley to reinforce P. G. T. Beauregard's army.}

The developments went hand in hand but the officers on both sides learned their craft during the Mexican War.

In that war, they fought a Mexican Army which had purchased surplus Brown Bess muskets from Britain. Thus, the Mexicans were fighting with obsolete weapons not modern rifles. Had the Mexicans had modern equipment those officers may have learned something.

Maybe.

custer's massacre. the sioux had WAY better weaponry than the custer's troop. they had bought/traded up to the latest civil war repeating rifles - far better than the firearms carried by the troopers - and i won't even go near this particular irony.

and they kicked ass, on that particular day.

what they didn't have was the socio/political/economic machine to go with it.

so, in the end, they lost.

and the minimum wage, minimally equipped troopers won.

just like the celtoi and the roman legionaries.


j

[Minimalist]

and what did roman armies do at the first opportunity?

build roads.

My college Roman History prof considered the Roman road network to be the finest thing they ever did.

[john]

but people like stonewall jackson proved that brains could still out-manuever improved guns.


stonewall jackson was shot and killed by a troop of his own army.

mechanized warfare.

"collateral damage".


j

[Minimalist]

Night reconnaissance....not always a good idea.

[Guest]

My college Roman History prof considered the Roman road network to be the finest thing they ever did.

he was right.

but that doesn't mean that 'industrial warfare' was evident or superior instead i would put that down as being wise and overcoming a problem.

custer's massacre. the sioux had WAY better weaponry than the custer's troop

it wasn't JUST better guns, the sioux had custer vastly outnumbered plus custer picked a poor spot to stand and fight.

i don't see how you can divorce one element from another when it comes to war. one needs inteeligence, needs superior weapons, roads or railroads and so on. they all play their part and at different times one is more pronounced than another.

[john]

it wasn't JUST better guns, the sioux had custer vastly outnumbered plus custer picked a poor spot to stand and fight.


superior use of intellect, yes? on custer's side, of course. he was known for fulminating about that.

j

and btw, what about the noahlogical evidence for the flood?

[Minimalist]

The Zulu overwhelmed a British force of nearly 1200 men at Isandlwana in 1879. The British had far superior weapons but the Zulu were just as brave....and had far greater numbers.

[Guest]

The Zulu overwhelmed a British force of nearly 1200 men at Isandlwana in 1879. The British had far superior weapons but the Zulu were just as brave....and had far greater numbers.

i had forgotten about that. they were more willing to sacrifice men than the british as well.

WWII was a equal combination of intellect and industrialization, in my opinion.

[Guest]

we have archaeological evidence of the roman system of roads.

and what did roman armies do at the first opportunity?

build roads.

early evidence of industrial warfare, fueled by economic motivation.

the celts didn't stand a chance, although they were brave.

The most important consideration for Roman commanders was to keep their troops busy at all times, whether training or building roads. There is the Gask Ridge system in Scotland, which is considered to be the prototype for Hadrian's Wall. Along the Gask Ridge in Perthshire, the Romans built a system of watch/signal towers along the line of the road to the fort at Bertha (Perth). Any trader wishing to cross this line had to pay a toll, and there was also the added element of an early warning system of sorts.
With regard to the Celts not standing a chance, that was only really true in parts of England. Many chiefs saw the advantage of being Roman client kings to avoid conflict. Scotland and Wales were never fully conquered however, and the Romans never attempted to invade Ireland.

trivia question for the evening - what was the standard of measure used to define the wheel-to wheel width of british narrow gauge railways?

answer: the width of roman roads, which was set by the standardised width-between-wheels of roman chariots.

this stuff is pernicious.

That's because the western education system still sang the praises of the Roman/Greek world into the 20th century, and particularly in private schools. The inspiration for the SS came from Plato's Republic; a well-ordered society where everyone knew their place, and a professional army was hired, fed, equipped by the state and encouraged to foster their own sense of superiority by only breeding from suitably qualified mates.

[Guest]

stonewall jackson was shot and killed by a troop of his own army.

mechanized warfare.

"collateral damage".

"Friendly fire."

--J.D.